Google authored the seminal 'Transformers' AI paper but failed to capitalize on it, allowing outsiders to build the next wave of AI. This shows how incumbents can be so 'lost in the sauce' of their current paradigm that they don't notice when their own research creates a fundamental shift.

Related Insights

Success brings knowledge, but it also creates a bias against trying unconventional ideas. Early-stage entrepreneurs are "too dumb to know it was dumb," allowing them to take random shots with high upside. Experienced founders often filter these out, potentially missing breakthroughs, fun, and valuable memories.

Unlike cloud or mobile, which incumbents initially ignored, AI adoption is consensus. Startups can't rely on incumbents being slow. The new 'white space' for disruption exists in niche markets large companies still deem too small to enter.

OpenAI, the initial leader in generative AI, is now on the defensive as competitors like Google and Anthropic copy and improve upon its core features. This race demonstrates that being first offers no lasting moat; in fact, it provides a roadmap for followers to surpass the leader, creating a first-mover disadvantage.

Unlike mobile or internet shifts that created openings for startups, AI is an "accelerating technology." Large companies can integrate it quickly, closing the competitive window for new entrants much faster than in previous platform shifts. The moat is no longer product execution but customer insight.

AI favors incumbents more than startups. While everyone builds on similar models, true network effects come from proprietary data and consumer distribution, both of which incumbents own. Startups are left with narrow problems, but high-quality incumbents are moving fast enough to capture these opportunities.

Large platforms focus on massive opportunities right in front of them ('gold bricks at their feet'). They consciously ignore even valuable markets that require more effort ('gold bricks 100 feet away'). This strategic neglect creates defensible spaces for startups in those niche areas.

Google can dedicate nearly all its resources to AI product development because its core business handles infrastructure and funding. In contrast, OpenAI must constantly focus on fundraising and infrastructure build-out. This mirrors the dynamic where a focused Facebook outmaneuvered a distracted MySpace, highlighting a critical incumbent advantage.

Despite its early dominance, OpenAI's internal "Code Red" in response to competitors like Google's Gemini and Anthropic demonstrates a critical business lesson. An early market lead is not a guarantee of long-term success, especially in a rapidly evolving field like artificial intelligence.

As the market leader, OpenAI has become risk-averse to avoid media backlash. This has “damaged the product,” making it overly cautious and less useful. Meanwhile, challengers like Google have adopted a risk-taking posture, allowing them to innovate faster. This shows how a defensive mindset can cede ground to hungrier competitors.

New technology like AI doesn't automatically displace incumbents. Established players like DoorDash and Google successfully defend their turf by leveraging deep-rooted network effects (e.g., restaurant relationships, user habits). They can adopt or build competing tech, while challengers struggle to replicate the established ecosystem.